Chapter 9: Why do Interviewers Vary in Achieving Interview Privacy and Does Privacy Matter? Appendix 9

Appendix 9A Table A9A.1 Description and univariate distribution of measures used in models Appendix 9B Table A9B.1 Random Intercept Two Level Logistic Regression Model Predicting Third-party Presence during the Intervie

The Saudi National Mental Health Survey: Sample design and weight development

ObjectivesTo describe the sample design and weighting procedures used in the Saudi National Mental Health Survey (SNMHS).MethodsA multistage clustered area probability design was used to select the SNMHS sample with one male and one female KSA citizen ages 15- 65 surveyed in each sample household.ResultsA design representative of the household population was developed and modified iteratively to adjust for unanticipated field complications. These modifications, along with variation in within- household probabilities of selection and geographic- demographic variation in response rates were accounted for through survey weights. Design- based estimation methods were used to adjust for the effects of these weights and of geographic clustering. Design effects were estimated and simulations were carried out on bias- variancetrade- offs in weight trimming to evaluate the implication of design features for precision of estimates.ConclusionsThe multiple purposes of the survey will require the use of different weights for different types of analyses, including household and person weights as well as weights for proxy reports about household members whose disabilities prevented them from participating in the survey. It will be important to use these different weights appropriately in the diverse analyses that will be undertaken with the SNMHS data.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/162744/2/mpr1829.pdfhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/162744/1/mpr1829_am.pd

Implementing the TRAPD model for the Saudi adaptation of the World Mental Health Composite International Diagnostic Interview 3.0

Abstract Background The World Mental Health-Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI) 3.0, originally in English, is a fully-structured interview designed for the assessment of mental disorders. Although Arabic translations of CIDI from countries like Lebanon and Iraq exist, a Modern Standard Arabic translation was developed to suit the Saudi population. While the translation model used in the present paper has been used to translate instruments in Asian and European languages, there is no study to the best of our knowledge which has used this specific model to translate a validated instrument from English to Arabic. Case presentation This paper describes the Saudi adaptation of CIDI 3.0. The TRAPD team translation model—comprising of translation, review, adjudication, pretesting and documentation—was implemented to carry out the Saudi adaptation of CIDI 3.0. Pretests involving cognitive interviewing and pilot study led to translation revisions which consequently confirmed that Saudi respondents had a good understanding of various items of the instrument. The adaptation procedures for the Saudi CIDI 3.0 were well documented and the instrument was linguistically validated with the Saudi population. Conclusion The TRAPD model was successfully implemented to adapt the CIDI 3.0 to be used as the main survey instrument for the Saudi National Mental Health Survey, findings of which will provide health policy makers mental health indicators for health decision making and planning.https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/148144/1/13033_2019_Article_267.pd

The Saudi National Mental Health Survey: Methodological and logistical challenges from the pilot study

Several challenges exist in carrying out nationâ wide epidemiological surveys in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) due to the unique characteristics of its population. The objectives of this report are to review these challenges and the lessons learnt about best practices in meeting these challenges from the extensive piloting of the Saudi National Mental Health Survey (SNMHS), which is being carried out as part of the World Mental Health (WMH) Survey Initiative. We focus on challenges involving sample design, instrumentation, and data collection procedures. The SNMHS will ultimately provide crucial data for health policyâ makers and mental health specialists in KSA.Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/138907/1/mpr1565.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/138907/2/mpr1565_am.pd

The Saudi National Mental Health Survey: Survey instrument and field procedures

ObjectivesTo present an overview of the survey and field procedures developed for the Saudi National Mental Health Survey (SNMHS).MethodsThe SNMHS is a face- to- face community epidemiological survey of DSM- IV mental disorders in a nationally representative sample of the household population in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) (n = 4,004). The SNMHS was implemented as part of the WHO World Mental Health (WMH) Survey Initiative. WMH carries out coordinated psychiatric epidemiological surveys in countries throughout the world using standardized procedures designed to provide valid cross- national comparative data on prevalence and correlates of common mental disorders. However, these procedures need to be adapted to the unique experiences in each country. We focus here on the adaptations made for the SNMHS.ResultsModifications were needed to several interview sections and expansions were needed to address issues of special policy importance in KSA. Several special field implementation challenges also had to be addressed because of the need for female interviewers to travel with male escorts and for respondents to be interviewed by interviewers of the same gender.ConclusionsThoughtful revisions led to a high- quality field implementation in the SNMHS.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/162792/2/mpr1830.pdfhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/162792/1/mpr1830_am.pd

a World Mental Health Surveys report

Funding Information: The WHO World Mental Health Survey collaborators are Sergio Aguilar-Gaxiola, MD, PhD; Ali Al-Hamzawi, MD; Mohammed Salih Al-Kaisy, MD; Jordi Alonso, MD, PhD; Yasmin A. Altwaijri, PhD; Laura Helena Andrade, MD, PhD; Lukoye Atwoli, MD, PhD; Corina Benjet, PhD; Guilherme Borges, ScD; Evelyn J. Bromet, PhD; Ronny Bruffaerts, PhD; Brendan Bunting, PhD; Jose Miguel Caldas-de-Almeida, MD, PhD; Gra?a Cardoso, MD, PhD; Somnath Chatterji, MD; Alfredo H. Cia, MD; Louisa Degenhardt, PhD; Koen Demyttenaere, MD, PhD; Silvia Florescu, MD, PhD; Giovanni de Girolamo, MD; Oye Gureje, MD, DSc, FRCPsych; Josep Maria Haro, MD, PhD; Meredith G. Harris, PhD; Hristo Hinkov, MD, PhD; Chi-yi Hu, MD, PhD; Peter de Jonge, PhD; Aimee Nasser Karam, PhD; Elie G. Karam, MD; Norito Kawakami, MD, DMSc; Ronald C. Kessler, PhD; Andrzej Kiejna, MD, PhD; Viviane Kovess-Masfety, MD, PhD; Sing Lee, MBBS; Jean-Pierre Lepine, MD; John J. McGrath, MD, PhD; Maria Elena Medina-Mora, PhD; Zeina Mneimneh, PhD; Jacek Moskalewicz, PhD; Fernando Navarro-Mateu, MD, PhD; Marina Piazza, MPH, ScD; Jose Posada-Villa, MD; Kate M. Scott, PhD; Tim Slade, PhD; Juan Carlos Stagnaro, MD, PhD; Dan J. Stein, FRCPC, PhD; Margreet ten Have, PhD; Yolanda Torres, MPH, Dra.HC; Maria Carmen Viana, MD, PhD; Daniel V. Vigo, MD, DrPH; Harvey Whiteford, MBBS, PhD; David R. Williams, MPH, PhD; Bogdan Wojtyniak, ScD. Funding Information: The Argentina survey -- Estudio Argentino de Epidemiología en Salud Mental (EASM) -- was supported by a grant from the Argentinian Ministry of Health (Ministerio de Salud de la Nación) - (Grant Number 2002–17270/13–5). The 2007 Australian National Survey of Mental Health and Wellbeing is funded by the Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing. The São Paulo Megacity Mental Health Survey is supported by the State of São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP) Thematic Project Grant 03/00204–3. The Bulgarian Epidemiological Study of common mental disorders EPIBUL is supported by the Ministry of Health and the National Center for Public Health Protection. EPIBUL 2, conducted in 2016–17, is supported by the Ministry of Health and European Economic Area Grants. The Colombian National Study of Mental Health (NSMH) is supported by the Ministry of Social Protection. The Mental Health Study Medellín – Colombia was carried out and supported jointly by the Center for Excellence on Research in Mental Health (CES University) and the Secretary of Health of Medellín. The ESEMeD project is funded by the European Commission (Contracts QLG5–1999-01042; SANCO 2004123, and EAHC 20081308), (the Piedmont Region (Italy)), Fondo de Investigación Sanitaria, Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Spain (FIS 00/0028), Ministerio de Ciencia y Tecnología, Spain (SAF 2000–158-CE), Generalitat de Catalunya (2017 SGR 452; 2014 SGR 748), Instituto de Salud Carlos III (CIBER CB06/02/0046, RETICS RD06/0011 REM-TAP), and other local agencies and by an unrestricted educational grant from GlaxoSmithKline. Implementation of the Iraq Mental Health Survey (IMHS) and data entry were carried out by the staff of the Iraqi MOH and MOP with direct support from the Iraqi IMHS team with funding from both the Japanese and European Funds through United Nations Development Group Iraq Trust Fund (UNDG ITF). The Israel National Health Survey is funded by the Ministry of Health with support from the Israel National Institute for Health Policy and Health Services Research and the National Insurance Institute of Israel. The World Mental Health Japan (WMHJ) Survey is supported by the Grant for Research on Psychiatric and Neurological Diseases and Mental Health (H13-SHOGAI-023, H14-TOKUBETSU-026, H16-KOKORO-013, H25-SEISHIN-IPPAN-006) from the Japan Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare. The Lebanese Evaluation of the Burden of Ailments and Needs Of the Nation (L.E.B.A.N.O.N.) is supported by the Lebanese Ministry of Public Health, the WHO (Lebanon), National Institute of Health/Fogarty International Center (R03 TW006481–01), anonymous private donations to IDRAAC, Lebanon, and unrestricted grants from, Algorithm, AstraZeneca, Benta, Bella Pharma, Eli Lilly, Glaxo Smith Kline, Lundbeck, Novartis, OmniPharma, Pfizer, Phenicia, Servier, UPO. The Mexican National Comorbidity Survey (MNCS) is supported by The National Institute of Psychiatry Ramon de la Fuente (INPRFMDIES 4280) and by the National Council on Science and Technology (CONACyT-G30544- H), with supplemental support from the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO). Te Rau Hinengaro: The New Zealand Mental Health Survey (NZMHS) is supported by the New Zealand Ministry of Health, Alcohol Advisory Council, and the Health Research Council. The Northern Ireland Study of Mental Health was funded by the Health & Social Care Research & Development Division of the Public Health Agency. The Peruvian World Mental Health Study was funded by the National Institute of Health of the Ministry of Health of Peru. The Polish project Epidemiology of Mental Health and Access to Care –EZOP Project (PL 0256) was carried out by the Institute of Psychiatry and Neurology in Warsaw in consortium with Department of Psychiatry - Medical University in Wroclaw and National Institute of Public Health-National Institute of Hygiene in Warsaw and in partnership with Psykiatrist Institut Vinderen–Universitet, Oslo. The project was funded by the European Economic Area Financial Mechanism and the Norwegian Financial Mechanism. EZOP project was co-financed by the Polish Ministry of Health. The Portuguese Mental Health Study was carried out by the Department of Mental Health, Faculty of Medical Sciences, NOVA University of Lisbon, with collaboration of the Portuguese Catholic University, and was funded by Champalimaud Foundation, Gulbenkian Foundation, Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT) and Ministry of Health. The Saudi National Mental Health Survey (SNMHS) is conducted by the King Salman Center for Disability Research. It is funded by Saudi Basic Industries Corporation (SABIC), King Abdulaziz City for Science and Technology (KACST), Ministry of Health (Saudi Arabia), and King Saud University. Funding in-kind was provided by King Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research Center, and the Ministry of Economy and Planning, General Authority for Statistics. The Psychiatric Enquiry to General Population in Southeast Spain – Murcia (PEGASUS-Murcia) Project has been financed by the Regional Health Authorities of Murcia (Servicio Murciano de Salud and Consejería de Sanidad y Política Social) and Fundación para la Formación e Investigación Sanitarias (FFIS) of Murcia. The US National Comorbidity Survey Replication (NCS-R) is supported by the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH; U01-MH60220) with supplemental support from the National Institute of Drug Abuse (NIDA), the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF; Grant 044708), and the John W. Alden Trust. Funding Information: The World Health Organization World Mental Health (WMH) Survey Initiative is supported by the United States National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH; R01 MH070884), the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the Pfizer Foundation, the United States Public Health Service (R13-MH066849, R01-MH069864, and R01 DA016558), the Fogarty International Center (FIRCA R03-TW006481), the Pan American Health Organization, Eli Lilly and Company, Ortho-McNeil Pharmaceutical Inc., GlaxoSmithKline, and Bristol-Myers Squibb. We thank the staff of the WMH Data Collection and Data Analysis Coordination Centres for assistance with instrumentation, fieldwork, and consultation on data analysis. None of the funders had any role in the design, analysis, interpretation of results, or preparation of this paper. The views and opinions expressed in this report are those of the authors and should not be construed to represent the views of the World Health Organization, other sponsoring organizations, agencies, or governments. Funding Information: In the past 3 years, RCK reports being a consultant for Datastat, Inc., RallyPoint Networks, Inc., Sage Pharmaceuticals, and Takeda. FNM reports non-financial support from Otsuka outside and not related to the submitted work. In the past 3 years LD has received untied educational grant funding from Indivior and Seqirus, not related to the submitted work. DJS has received research grants and/or honoraria from Lundbeck, Johnson & Johnson, Servier and Takeda. The remaining authors declare that they have no competing interests. Publisher Copyright: © 2021, The Author(s).Background: Treatment guidelines for generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) are based on a relatively small number of randomized controlled trials and do not consider patient-centered perceptions of treatment helpfulness. We investigated the prevalence and predictors of patient-reported treatment helpfulness for DSM-5 GAD and its two main treatment pathways: encounter-level treatment helpfulness and persistence in help-seeking after prior unhelpful treatment. Methods: Data came from community epidemiologic surveys in 23 countries in the WHO World Mental Health surveys. DSM-5 GAD was assessed with the fully structured WHO Composite International Diagnostic Interview Version 3.0. Respondents with a history of GAD were asked whether they ever received treatment and, if so, whether they ever considered this treatment helpful. Number of professionals seen before obtaining helpful treatment was also assessed. Parallel survival models estimated probability and predictors of a given treatment being perceived as helpful and of persisting in help-seeking after prior unhelpful treatment. Results: The overall prevalence rate of GAD was 4.5%, with lower prevalence in low/middle-income countries (2.8%) than high-income countries (5.3%); 34.6% of respondents with lifetime GAD reported ever obtaining treatment for their GAD, with lower proportions in low/middle-income countries (19.2%) than high-income countries (38.4%); 3) 70% of those who received treatment perceived the treatment to be helpful, with prevalence comparable in low/middle-income countries and high-income countries. Survival analysis suggested that virtually all patients would have obtained helpful treatment if they had persisted in help-seeking with up to 10 professionals. However, we estimated that only 29.7% of patients would have persisted that long. Obtaining helpful treatment at the person-level was associated with treatment type, comorbid panic/agoraphobia, and childhood adversities, but most of these predictors were important because they predicted persistence rather than encounter-level treatment helpfulness. Conclusions: The majority of individuals with GAD do not receive treatment. Most of those who receive treatment regard it as helpful, but receiving helpful treatment typically requires persistence in help-seeking. Future research should focus on ensuring that helpfulness is included as part of the evaluation. Clinicians need to emphasize the importance of persistence to patients beginning treatment.publishersversionpublishe

Age of onset and cumulative risk of mental disorders:a cross-national analysis of population surveys from 29 countries

Background: Information on the frequency and timing of mental disorder onsets across the lifespan is of fundamental importance for public health planning. Broad, cross-national estimates of this information from coordinated general population surveys were last updated in 2007. We aimed to provide updated and improved estimates of age-of-onset distributions, lifetime prevalence, and morbid risk. Methods: In this cross-national analysis, we analysed data from respondents aged 18 years or older to the World Mental Health surveys, a coordinated series of cross-sectional, face-to-face community epidemiological surveys administered between 2001 and 2022. In the surveys, the WHO Composite International Diagnostic Interview, a fully structured psychiatric diagnostic interview, was used to assess age of onset, lifetime prevalence, and morbid risk of 13 DSM-IV mental disorders until age 75 years across surveys by sex. We did not assess ethnicity. The surveys were geographically clustered and weighted to adjust for selection probability, and standard errors of incidence rates and cumulative incidence curves were calculated using the jackknife repeated replications simulation method, taking weighting and geographical clustering of data into account. Findings: We included 156 331 respondents from 32 surveys in 29 countries, including 12 low-income and middle-income countries and 17 high-income countries, and including 85 308 (54·5%) female respondents and 71 023 (45·4%) male respondents. The lifetime prevalence of any mental disorder was 28·6% (95% CI 27·9–29·2) for male respondents and 29·8% (29·2–30·3) for female respondents. Morbid risk of any mental disorder by age 75 years was 46·4% (44·9–47·8) for male respondents and 53·1% (51·9–54·3) for female respondents. Conditional probabilities of first onset peaked at approximately age 15 years, with a median age of onset of 19 years (IQR 14–32) for male respondents and 20 years (12–36) for female respondents. The two most prevalent disorders were alcohol use disorder and major depressive disorder for male respondents and major depressive disorder and specific phobia for female respondents. Interpretation: By age 75 years, approximately half the population can expect to develop one or more of the 13 mental disorders considered in this Article. These disorders typically first emerge in childhood, adolescence, or young adulthood. Services should have the capacity to detect and treat common mental disorders promptly and to optimise care that suits people at these crucial parts of the life course. Funding: None.</p

Estimating treatment coverage for people with substance use disorders:an analysis of data from the World Mental Health Surveys

Substance use is a major cause of disability globally. This has been recognized in the recent United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), in which treatment coverage for substance use disorders is identified as one of the indicators. There have been no estimates of this treatment coverage cross-nationally, making it difficult to know what is the baseline for that SDG target. Here we report data from the World Health Organization (WHO)'s World Mental Health Surveys (WMHS), based on representative community household surveys in 26 countries. We assessed the 12-month prevalence of substance use disorders (alcohol or drug abuse/dependence); the proportion of people with these disorders who were aware that they needed treatment and who wished to receive care; the proportion of those seeking care who received it; and the proportion of such treatment that met minimal standards for treatment quality (“minimally adequate treatment”). Among the 70,880 participants, 2.6% met 12-month criteria for substance use disorders; the prevalence was higher in upper-middle income (3.3%) than in high-income (2.6%) and low/lower-middle income (2.0%) countries. Overall, 39.1% of those with 12-month substance use disorders recognized a treatment need; this recognition was more common in high-income (43.1%) than in upper-middle (35.6%) and low/lower-middle income (31.5%) countries. Among those who recognized treatment need, 61.3% made at least one visit to a service provider, and 29.5% of the latter received minimally adequate treatment exposure (35.3% in high, 20.3% in upper-middle, and 8.6% in low/lower-middle income countries). Overall, only 7.1% of those with past-year substance use disorders received minimally adequate treatment: 10.3% in high income, 4.3% in upper-middle income and 1.0% in low/lower-middle income countries. These data suggest that only a small minority of people with substance use disorders receive even minimally adequate treatment. At least three barriers are involved: awareness/perceived treatment need, accessing treatment once a need is recognized, and compliance (on the part of both provider and client) to obtain adequate treatment. Various factors are likely to be involved in each of these three barriers, all of which need to be addressed to improve treatment coverage of substance use disorders. These data provide a baseline for the global monitoring of progress of treatment coverage for these disorders as an indicator within the SDGs

Perceived helpfulness of treatment for posttraumatic stress disorder: Findings from the World Mental Health Surveys

Background: Perceived helpfulness of treatment is an important healthcare quality indicator in the era of patient-centered care. We examine probability and predictors of two key components of this indicator for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Methods: Data come from World Mental Health surveys in 16 countries. Respondents who ever sought PTSD treatment (n = 779) were asked if treatment was ever helpful and, if so, the number of professionals they had to see to obtain helpful treatment. Patients whose treatment was never helpful were asked how many professionals they saw. Parallel survival models were estimated for obtaining helpful treatment in a specific encounter and persisting in help-seeking after earlier unhelpful encounters. Results: Fifty seven percent of patients eventually received helpful treatment, but survival analysis suggests that it would have been 85.7% if all patients had persisted in help-seeking with up to six professionals after earlier unhelpful treatment. Survival analysis suggests that only 23.6% of patients would persist to that extent. Odds of ever receiving helpful treatment were positively associated with receiving treatment from a mental health professional, short delays in initiating help-seeking after onset, absence of prior comorbid anxiety disorders and childhood adversities, and initiating treatment before 2000. Some of these variables predicted helpfulness of specific treatment encounters and others predicted persistence after earlier unhelpful encounters. Conclusions: The great majority of patients with PTSD would receive treatment they considered helpful if they persisted in help-seeking after initial unhelpful encounters, but most patients whose initial treatment is unhelpful give up before receiving helpful treatment